Lumumba's assassination took place 60 years ago. One would think that's ample time to at least partially recover from its aftermath, since assassinations during

Lumumba's assassination took place 60 years ago. One would think that's ample time to at least partially recover from its aftermath, since assassinations during civil strife are hardly unique to the Congo, especially as a new state. While Belgians took part in the assassination, it wasn't like it took place in a peaceful country, out of the blue. There was a power struggle over who will be the Congo's strongman, and Lumumba/pro-Soviets lost. So in this case, different groups of locals wanted different kinds of betters, or at least what they thought would be better. While it's certainly true that a number of new African states fell victim to the twists and turns of the Cold War (both sides having partook quite liberally), your theory fails to explain what happened to the states where there was little to no interference. The Congo is actually a perfect example of having relatively soft colonial rule (the Belgian state took over from the king in 1910s and gradually made the colonial rule a lot less brutal than the horror of the Congo Free State) being replaced way too suddenly with... something. Since there was nothing that could pass for a semi-coherent national elite to speak of, even compared to most other African colonies, it's no wonder the Congo fell into conflict almost immediately. It would be rather odd if that didn't happen, Cold War or no Cold war.